io.github.AIops-tools/symantec-edr-aiops

edr_sandbox_activities

Read-only

Investigate file behavior by reading sandbox activities for a SHA-2 hash, with limit and cursor pagination.

Instructions

[READ] Read sandbox activities.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "sha2": "<sha2>"
    },
    "name": "edr_sandbox_activities"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sha2`	Yes
`limit`	No
`next_cursor`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

D1.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's "[READ]" marker merely repeats that. It discloses nothing about pagination behavior (limit/next_cursor), result volume, latency, or what an "activity" record contains, which is the extra value expected when annotations cover only the safety profile.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single sentence is brief and front-loaded, but it is under-specification rather than conciseness: it contains no information an agent could not derive from the tool name and annotations. Nothing is wasted because nothing is said.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a three-parameter, paginated lookup tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description omits everything an agent needs: what sha2 identifies, how to page, and what is returned. It is effectively a label, not a definition.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across three parameters (sha2, limit, next_cursor), and the description supplies no compensating meaning. An agent cannot tell whether sha2 is a hash of the submitted sample, what limit's default of 30 means, or how the cursor is obtained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"[READ] Read sandbox activities" restates the tool name (edr_sandbox_activities) as a verb+resource with no added specificity. It gives no hint of what a "sandbox activity" is or how it differs from the many sandbox siblings (edr_sandbox_events, edr_sandbox_command, edr_sandbox_verdict, edr_sandbox_patterns).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. needing a sha2 of a previously submitted sample), and no routing to alternative sandbox tools. The only signal is the "[READ]" tag, which is already conveyed by annotations.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.